Why Arabs Lose Wars

[Hakan]

Coalitions always run into issues and in recent times Arabs have been fighting wars in this format. This over complicates things and causes one country to depend on the other. If one messes up then that effects everyone else. Also the various countries have different objectives so that also affects the effectiveness of the force itself.

 

[mahatir]

also in 67 war lack of planing what happened is isreal threating to attack syria so nasser order the army to go to sanai as warning or like general shazly said a military protest with out being ready to fight which is exactly what the isrealis wanted of course everyone knows how this story ended

He should have had backup plans before taking any action , after all he was stupid and wasted Egypt resources on worthless wars like yemen .

If he had not let sudan accede from Egypt , Today Egypt would have been in a strong position to impose its will on ethiopia when it comes to water nile , as you know the nile basin source is only 40 km from sudanese border .

he committed grave mistakes that Egypt is still paying for until today , especially letting Sudan go away .

 

[livingdead]

whatever said about arabs applies to Indian (dare I say all south asian) forces.

 

[jaibi]

whatever said about arabs applies to Indian (dare I say all south asian) forces.

True.
We lose wars because we haven't learnt the art of modern warfare.
We were fodder, not officers; we repeat that.mentality everywhere.

 

[Falcon29]

Egyptian Syria 1973 war combat footage:

@Frogman @Mahmoud_EGY @Syrian Lion

I just finished watching a documentary on the Sinai battle, it says Israel lost 1/3 of its airforce in the first two days and many of their tanks were destroyed, they had a limited number. So what happened? The US resupplied them everything and gave them intelligence right?

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

whatever said about arabs applies to Indian (dare I say all south asian) forces.

South East Asians have gone through a lot over the last two centuries.

The so-called colonialists exploited them to death. Only the lord knows how many poor Indians of the subcontinent have died in wars, contractions of trail ways in the UK, and so on.

@anonymus @Contrarian

 

[Falcon29]

South East Asians have gone through a lot over the last two centuries.

The so-called colonialists exploited them to death. Only the lord knows how many poor Indians of the subcontinent have died in wars, contractions of trail ways in the UK, and so on.

@anonymus @Contrarian

So called colonialists? Why don't you just call them angels?

 

[anonymus]

South East Asians have gone through a lot over the last two centuries.

The so-called colonialists exploited them to death. Only the lord knows how many poor Indians of the subcontinent have died in wars, contractions of trail ways in the UK, and so on.

@anonymus @Contrarian

That is more of a leftist take on colonialism. Frankly,there were lot of positives in British Rule.

In 1857, which was the largest insurgency against British, i would have sided with Britain had i had a chance for the choice otherwise was between a drunkard who spend all his time in a seraglio and some 500 odd bickering and dishonorable petty kings against Britain.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

So called colonialists? Why don't you just call them angels?

You know nothing about what that colonialism had brought to these people.

That is more of a leftist take on colonialism. Frankly,there were lot of positives in British Rule.

In 1857, which was the largest insurgency against British, i would have sided with Britain had i had a chance for the choice otherwise was between a drunkard who spend all his time in a seraglio and some 500 odd bickering and dishonorable petty kings against Britain.

Point taken.

There are positive aspects for sure. However, there had been lots and lots of negative aspects as well my friend.

The reference you gave to the 1857 insurgency is quite legitimate though.

 

[Falcon29]

You know nothing about what that colonialism had brought to these people.




.

Are you pro or anti colonialism?

 

[anonymus]

You know nothing about what that colonialism had brought to these people.




Point taken.

There are positive aspects for sure. However, there had been lots and lots of negative aspects as well my friend.

The reference you gave to the 1857 insurgency is quite legitimate though.

India and China never suffered the kind of colonialism that is synonyms with Africa. Since the start of 20th century most of affairs of India were managed by Indians and Indians were politically active since 1860, the culmination of which was formation of Congress in 1885.

 

[Syrian Lion]

Egyptian Syria 1973 war combat footage:

@Frogman @Mahmoud_EGY @Syrian Lion

I just finished watching a documentary on the Sinai battle, it says Israel lost 1/3 of its airforce in the first two days and many of their tanks were destroyed, they had a limited number. So what happened? The US resupplied them everything and gave them intelligence right?

Yes, the US basically fought in the war, some say the US only resupplied, but the truth, the US gave Israel all the intelligence and free WEAPONRY , so basically USA was fighting, now some might argue that the soviet also resupplied Egypt and Syria, however, it wasn't like the west's full support to Israel...

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Yes, the US basically fought in the war, some say the US only resupplied, but the truth, the US gave Israel all the intelligence and free WEAPONRY , so basically USA was fighting, now some might argue that the soviet also resupplied Egypt and Syria, however, it wasn't like the west's full support to Israel...

Both USA (SR-71) and Russia (MiG-25) made reconaissance flights over the canal zone.
That is really not "participating".

Only Russians participated actively in combat mostly in SAM units (some were captured by Israelis).
Only USA made contributions to Israel, not the rest of the NATO countries.
Very few actually allowed US aircrafts to land for refuelling.

There were a lot of other countries sending soldiers to fight for Arabs.
Pakistan, Iraq, Cuba, North Korea etc. Did not help.

So Arabs were betting on the wrong side in the East - West conflict.
Making the wrong decisions is no good if You want to win a war.

Kissinger told Israel not to crush the third army, so US intervened on the Arab side as well.

 

[JattSikhsoldier]

The arabs conquered half of france, all of spain, half of italy, northern africa, the middle east defeating the byzantine empire and persian empire Their current problems are due to division but dont compare them to indians, indians have done nothing in terms of militaryv achievements compared to the arabs

Actually Jatt Sikhs have an impressive military history, even till this day the Indian army is 95% Jatt or Sikh people, that same Arab Mohammad bin qasim who defeated the Persians lost against the Jatt Sikhs, you have to realize that the subcontinent doesn't have an impressive expansion history due to internal warfare, but they do have a great defensive history, Pathans and Jatts literally annihilated the British Empire, an achievement Arabs can't do in the past nor now either, these same Pathans and Jatts annihilated the Russians in the 1980s to from stepping into any area of Pakistani space, they also defeated the Mongols who had the largest land empire in history, these same Mongols are push overs in Afghanistan now, even Alexander who conquered Arab lands didn't even get close to taking northern Pakistan, to form an army and expand take coordination and strategy, to defend your homeland against outside invaders takes bravery and heart, majority of Saudi men are unfit for military service and are begging Pakistan to spare some soldiers to fight against Yemen, the whole Saudi peninsula is under Zionist hands, you have a small Israeli state who tells every Arab nation what to do, in contrast, here around the areas of Pakistan, it takes 36 white nations called NATO to even make a dent in the Pashtun tribesmen, and they're still failing right now, Persians had an expansion history also, then Arabs managed to win afterwards, now if Persians go to war with Arabs, they literally can annihilate the Middle East, majority of Islam expansion into Europe was from Turks and Moors, those same people were then colonized from French people, like I said, looking at Mongolia right now, you would never guess that Ghengis Khan was from there, because they can't fight America right now, but till this day and age, the people of northern Pakistan can challenge Europeans and still not be subjugated, there is a reason why the real graveyard of empires is actually the Karlani Pathans and Gujjars of Pakistan and not Afghanistan. Arabs only had a moment like Mongols did, till this day, the tribal people near areas of Pakistan are not easily subjugated even with no tanks or aircraft.

 

[Ceylal]

So called colonialists? Why don't you just call them angels?

the video has been removed from Youtube..